Hamilton Leadership Ignores Lead Laws
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

Hamilton Leadership Ignores Lead Laws

 

By Tammy Duffy

 

 

 

 

The man-made drinking water crisis in Flint has made international headlines. For more than a year, state officials -- from Gov. Snyder to his appointed Flint emergency managers to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality -- exposed an entire city to the risk of lead poisoning in their drinking water. It's a public health catastrophe with long-lasting consequences for the children under the age of six in Flint who will suffer neurological damage for the rest of their lives. 

 

A Hamilton resident, age 4, died in his sleep Sept. 25 from EVD68. In 2014, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of EVD68 associated with severe respiratory illness. For months prior to the death of a Hamilton resident, there was a nationwide epidemic occurring. The CDC was contacting the nation and health workers on how to help elevate this epidemic in towns. Several health departments and mayors in towns in Mercer county, not including Hamilton, were proactive in educating their schools, residents know what to do as it pertained to hand washing and cleanliness. The township of Hamilton was silent on this issue.  There were zero proactive measures made during the EVD68 outbreak. It was not until after the death of a 4 year old resident that the local health department and mayor made any type of announcement or educated the community.

 

During several of the press conferences, after the death of a resident, the mayor of Hamilton Township, stated, "Does anyone even know what EVD68 is?  This was a startling statement for residents. How can the leader of a town, when a nationwide epidemic is occurring not know about it?  This same leader was oblivious to the fact that there was a heroin epidemic in her own town and named her town, "the Big H" at another press conference. "The Big H" is the street name for heroin. What does this leader know about the lead crisis in America?  There is zero information on the township website to educate residents on what to do for their children as it pertains to lead in the water. Upon calling the HAMSTAT headquarters and the Department of Health in Hamilton we learned that there are nothing as well. The people we spoke to knew of no programs, mandatory testing or could speak to the results demonstrated in the NJ State Department of Health report. Is Hamilton the next Flint? Why are the children not being tested? Where is the plan to protect the residents?

 

N.J.A.C. 8:51A requires the protection of children less than six years of age from the toxic effects of lead exposure by requiring lead screening pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:2-137.2 et seq. (P.L. 1995, c 328.  An EBLL: Elevated Blood Lead Level  is 10 µg/dL or greater.

 

The number of children tested for lead in NJ as 220,787, which represents an increase of 2.9% over the 214,478 children tested during SFY 2011. The SFY 2012 number of children tested also includes 103,380 children, or 48%, who are between six and 29 months of age, the ages at which all children must be tested under State law.

 

While 213,020 (99.5%) children tested during SFY 2012 had blood lead levels below the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) threshold of 10 μg/dL, there were 1,155 (0.52%) children with a test result above this threshold, including 236 children, who had at least one test result of 20 μg/dL or greater. In 2014, only 83% of the investigations of Pb levels above 20 μg/dL  in NJ were completed. However, only 48% of the abatements were completed according to a Department of Health report from 2014.  The reports states that this lack of follow up are occurring due to the following issues:

 

• difficulty in identifying and communicating with absentee property owners
• lengthy enforcement actions and court proceedings against recalcitrant property owners;
• delays in contracting with and scheduling work to be performed by State-certified lead abatement contractors; and,  inability of property owners to obtain financial assistance to pay for the cost of the required abatement

 

In New Jersey, all children are to be tested at both one and two years of age. At a minimum all children should have at least one blood lead test before their sixth birthday. Approximately 78% of children in New Jersey have had at least one blood lead test prior to reaching three years of age. In Hamilton the numbers are significantly lower. The numbers are as low as 14% of children being tested. There was a new gun range built in a residential neighborhood in Hamilton, costing more than $500,000 according to sources. There are two other ranges within 3 miles of the town that the township police could use. Why was this money spent on a range vs. the children to get them tested?

 

Lead is a heavy metal that has been widely used in industrial processes and consumer products. When absorbed into the human body, lead affects the blood, kidneys and nervous system. Lead’s effects on the nervous system are particularly serious and can cause learning disabilities, hyperactivity, decreased hearing, mental retardation and possible death. Lead is particularly hazardous to children between six months and six years of age because their neurological system and organs are still developing. Children who have suffered from the adverse effects of lead exposure for an extended period of time are frequently in need of special health and educational services in order to assist them to develop to their potential as productive members of society. The primary method for lead to enter the body is the ingestion of lead containing substances.

 

Lead was removed from gasoline in the United States in the early 1980’s. This action is credited with reducing the level of lead in the air, and thereby the amount of lead inhaled by children. However, significant amounts of lead remain in the environment where it poses a threat to children. Some common lead containing substances that are ingested or inhaled by children include:

 

·         lead-based paint

·         dust and soil;

·         tap water;

·         food stored in lead soldered cans or improperly      glazed pottery

·         traditional folk remedies and cosmetics     containing lead.

 

All children in New Jersey are at risk because lead-based paint and other lead-containing substances are present throughout the environment. Some children, however, are at particularly high risk due to exposure to high dose sources of lead in their immediate environment.

 

These potential high dose sources include:  leaded paint that is peeling, chipping or otherwise in a deteriorated condition; lead-contaminated dust created during removal or disturbance of leaded paint in the process of home renovation; and  lead-contaminated dust brought into the home by adults who work in an occupation that involves lead or materials containing lead, or who engage in a hobby where lead is used. Recently, there has been much attention focused by the media on the increasing number of foreign imports coming into the United States being tainted with dangerous levels of lead.

 

This has been alarming especially when these imports consist of toys and other products used primarily by children. However, in New Jersey, today, the primary lead hazard to children comes from leadbased paint. In recognition of the danger that lead-based paint presents to children, such paint was regulated for residential use in New Jersey in 1971, and banned nationwide in 1978. There are numerous dollar stores in the township of Hamilton that carry many of these lead contained toys that the children are playing with. 

This ban has effectively reduced the risk of lead exposure for children who live in houses built after 1978, but any house built before 1978 may still contain leaded paint. The highest risk for children is found in houses built before 1950, when paints contained a very high percentage of lead. There are nearly one million housing units in New Jersey, 30% of the housing in the state, which were built before 1950. Every county in the State has more than 9,000 housing units built before 1950 and more than 2.5 million housing units built prior to 1980

 

 

 

New Jersey Takes Childhood Lead Poisoning Seriously By Acting Health Commissioner Cathleen D. Bennett Every day in New Jersey, in local health departments, community health centers, doctors’ offices, WIC clinics and in home visits with at-risk populations, health professionals test children for elevated lead levels and educate families about preventing lead poisoning, which can cause behavior and learning problems, lower IQ, hyperactivity, slowed growth, hearing problems, anemia and kidney damage. New Jersey is one of 17 states that require universal lead screening of all children at ages 1 and 2.

 

Other states target screening only to children at increased risk for lead exposure. New Jersey’s approach is far more protective. More than 205,600 children were screened for lead last year. And the number of children with elevated blood lead levels has dramatically declined over the past 20 years.

 

There were 27,295 cases in 2000 compared to 3,426 so far this year. That is a public health success story. More than 100 WIC clinics in New Jersey ask every mother and caregiver if their child has been tested for lead. If they have not, they are referred to a clinic or to their physician for testing. If their child’s test shows elevated levels, they are counseled on the importance of nutritious foods rich in Iron, Vitamin C and Calcium and warned about potential sources of lead exposure such as chipping paint and imported products. Each year, the Department of Health provides $11 million to the Department of Children and Families to support its evidence-based home visitation programs, which bring nurses, community health workers and, in some cases, trained parents into the homes of at-risk families to provide information and referrals on child health and safety issues including strategies to reduce exposures to lead. New Jersey’s poison control center, the New Jersey Poison Information and Education System (NJPIES), has used state funding for years to educate the public on lead poisoning and to counsel callers to its 24/7 hotline (1-800-222-1222). It has also issued numerous warnings about non-traditional sources of lead including imported candies, jewelry, cosmetics, spices, pottery and home remedies. The Department also funds continuing medical education so that health care providers understand how to identify lead poisoning. Yet, there is zero information in Hamilton to educate the residents.

 

After Superstorm Sandy devastated New Jersey—heightening the risk of lead exposure due to extensive debris from thousands of destroyed homes and businesses--the Department of Health asked the federal government for and received $5.4 million for a Lead Poisoning Prevention Initiative.

 

According to a report by the  N.J. Department of Health from 2014, the township of Hamilton demonstrated they had 1,814 children who were in the age bracket of 6 to 26 months of age. Only 22% of these children were tested for lead. These results demonstrate one of the lowest in the state out of the large municipalities evaluated.

 

• 392 children in this age bracket were found to have lead levels below 5 BLL (µg/dL)
• 9 children in this age bracket were found to have lead levels between 5-9 BLL (µg/dL)
• 1 child in this age bracket were found to have lead levels above10 BLL (µg/dL)
• Only 22% of the children were tested

 

 

N.J.A.C. 8:51A requires the protection of children less than six years of age from the toxic effects of lead exposure by requiring lead screening pursuant to N.J.S.A. 26:2-137.2 et seq. (P.L. 1995, c 328. So why is the Township of Hamilton ignoring this law?  Why are only 22% of the children being evaluated in Hamilton township, Mercer County?

 

According to a report by the  N.J. Department of Health from 2014, the township of Hamilton demonstrated they had 5,480 children who were in the age bracket of less than 6 years of age. Only 14.9% of these children were tested for lead in Hamilton township, Mercer County. These results demonstrate one of the lowest in the state out of the large municipalities evaluated.

 

• 749 children in this age bracket were found to have lead levels below 5 BLL (µg/dL)
• 18 children in this age bracket were found to have lead levels between 5-9 BLL (µg/dL)
• 1 child in this age bracket were found to have lead levels above10 BLL (µg/dL)
• 1 child in this age bracket was found to have lead levels between 20-44 BLL
• Only 14.9% of the children were tested

 

 

New Jersey law (N.J.S.A. § 24:14A-6) requires Local Boards of Health to investigate all reported cases of childhood lead poisoning (N.J.A.C. § 8:51) within their jurisdiction and to order the abatement of all lead hazards identified in the course of the investigation. The procedures for conducting environmental investigations in response to a lead-poisoned child are specified in N.J.A.C. § 8:51.

 

The Local Board of Health must conduct an inspection of the child’s primary residence and any secondary address, such as a child care center, the home of a relative or babysitter, or wherever the child spends at least 10 hours per week. If the child moves, the property where the child resided when the blood lead test was performed must be inspected. The environmental inspection includes a determination of the presence of lead-based paint and leaded dust; the identification of locations where that paint is in a hazardous condition such as peeling, chipping, or flaking; and, as appropriate, the presence of lead on the dwelling’s exterior or soil. The inspector, with the public health nurse, speaks to the child’s parent/guardian and completes a questionnaire to help determine any other potential sources of exposure to lead. In addition, the Local Board of Health arranges for a home visit by a public health nurse to educate the parent/guardian about lead poisoning and the steps that he or she can take to protect the child from further exposure. The public health nurse also provides ongoing case management services to assist the family, including but not limited to, receiving follow-up testing, medical treatment, and social services that may be necessary to address the effects of the child’s exposure to lead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEWARE OF CROWDFUNDING SCAMS: KICKSTARTER AND INDIEGOGO
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

 

 

BEWARE OF CROWDFUNDING SCAMS: KICKSTARTER AND INDIEGOGO

 

By Tammy Duffy

 

Crowdfunding, whether the target is financing a philanthropic initiative, an art project or a business proposal – is a sexy concept and has turned Kickstarter into a household name.

 

By pooling the resources of investors or donors with relatively tiny amounts of money to put to work, in numbers large enough to offset that small per capita sum – has helped get movies into development and launched new products.

 

The approach is akin to angel investing, with the key differences being that investors will get publicly traded stock and that angel investors tend to be savvy, experienced folks not looking at the deals they fund as a way to strike it rich. Most of them are already wealthy, having made millions as entrepreneurs or executives and who now are risking a relatively tiny portion of their net worth. Moreover, these angels typically are investing in a business in which they have some kind of specialized knowledge: An e-commerce angel might have been an early investor in eBay or Amazon.com, for instance, while someone putting a few thousand dollars into a health-care technology company is likely to have spent his career in that business and be familiar with what’s in hot demand and what technologies are likely to work.

 

But Kickstarter's most-buzzed-about projects -- the ones that blow through their funding goals and draw in thousands of backers -- have a spottier track record. Anecdotal reports abound of flawed products (try Googling "jellyfish death trap"), overambitious creators who can't pull off what they promised, and epic delays. An investigation found that 84% of Kickstarter's 50 top-funded projects missed their estimated delivery dates or never happen.

 

84% is a large number of potential scams occurring.

 

Like many of the projects it launched, Kickstarter is in some ways a victim of its own runaway success. Indiegogo does not have any better of a track record.  They both hide behind the cloak of their terms and conditions and take zero responsibility for what is going on. 

 

Kickstarter, founded in 2009 to fund "creative projects," the site wasn't intended to hatch things like new gadgets that require multi-million-dollar manufacturing lines in Asia. It began as a way for artistic types to raise a few thousand dollars for their gallery shows, records, and books.

 

"We had a lot of musicians and artists at first, and that's still 95% of the platform," says Kickstarter co-founder Yancey Strickler. "But we've always had a broad definition of 'creativity,' and that's led to some contemporary definitions of the word. Maybe it's not what Beethoven was doing, but if they had 3-D printers in his time, he probably would have been into it."

 

Such quips are common from Strickler, who looks like Central Casting's vision of a startup founder. He's got the requisite thick-rimmed glasses, casually floppy brown hair, and an omnipresent half-grin whenever he talks about the platform he created.

 

Thanks to the rise of crowdfunding, some amazing, otherwise impossible product ideas have made it to the masses. Risky, wildly imaginative, and innovative are some of the adjectives used to describe the most notable projects. At the time of writing this, Kickstarter has provided the means for $1.89 Billion in pledges towards 99,475 successful projects. Though Indiegogo’s statistics are kept private, you can bet their pledges are substantial as well.

 

A dark side to this is emerging, however; some of these campaigns are leaving their investors high and dry. Scammers are seeing these platforms as a way raise tons of money and then disappear without a trace. There are now numerous poorly-executed projects floating around the web, and even more exploited investors floating around right behind them. Just like investing in the “real world”, it has become critical that you perform your due diligence as a backer before throwing your money at the next big thing.

 

Thankfully we are seeing efforts to mitigate these dangers, from backers, authorities and the platform makers themselves.  Last year, a few developments set a new tone for accountability. Kickstarter hired Mark Harris, a well known tech journalist, to investigate the high-profile failure known as Zano. Zano raised an incredible $3.4 Million to bring their video recording drone project to the public. They failed not only to deliver on the actual product, but also failed to provide adequate transparency as to where the funds went or why backers still hadn’t received their drones.

 

To help the overall cause, last spring the FTC successfully pursued and settled charges with a different scammer who canceled his project and then used backers’ money to pack up and move.

 

Though most crowd funding supporters will agree that the defensive moves mentioned above do set a positive precedent in protecting backers, they are simply not practical in each case. Not every project is fortunate enough to be properly investigated, and even “verified” LinkedIn and Facebook accounts may not be effective to ensure you’re dealing with someone who is who they claim to be, or selling a product that exists in the form they suggest.

 

Take a good look at the prototype being offered. You must ask yourself: what credentials does the project creator possess? Besides having access to the technical resources, do they have the ability to manage the project from conception to fruition? What does your gut tell you about the project you’re looking to back? Or ask them – what do they tell you? If it seems too good to be true or too far out there, it likely is.

 

On the flipside, not every delayed project is automatically a scam either. Anyone who has worked in design, manufacturing, or development will tell you that “things” happen. Delays caused by issues sourcing specialized parts, inconsistencies in manufacturing quality, or shifting shipment timelines may all be genuine reasons to postpone a project. What is not acceptable, however, is refraining from explaining the reason(s) to backers and failing to keep them informed on how issues are being resolved.

 

It is up to you as a consumer and potential backer to invest wisely, just as if you were pouring capital into some risky new stocks. There is a bit of risk inherent with each project you back because there is only so much Kickstarter, Indiegogo, or GoFundMe can do in each case to ensure legitimacy, and even less to ensure success. Understandably, no one wants to spend their hard-earned cash on something that will never materialize. On the bright side, there’s still always Amazon.

 

Some Kickstarter scams:

 

Stone Tether: 6,927 backers pledged $366,199 to help bring this project to life.

Juicebee: 758 backers pledged $57,852 to help bring this project to life.

Agent Watch: 5,685 backers pledged $1,012,742 to help bring this project to life.

Coolest Cooler: 62,642 backers pledged $13,285,226 to help bring this project to life.

 

Indiegogo scam: Triton Gills: 2,409 backers pledged $878,180

 

Let the buyer beware.

 

 

 

In a published opinion issued March 22, a three-judge Appellate Division panel affirmed a trial judge's decision to dismiss a criminal charge against a convicted Somerset County sex offender, identified only as S.B., who is a volunteer with his church's youth group.

 

Appellate Division Judge Marie Lihotz, joined by Judges William Nugent and Carol Higbee, said the Legislature purposefully excluded church groups from the statute, N.J.S.A. 2C:7-1 to -23, that bars sex offenders from holding "a position or otherwise participate, in a paid or unpaid capacity, in a youth serving organization."

 

A Somerset County grand jury indicted S.B., who has a conviction for sexual assault involving a victim under the age of 18, for violating the statute, which is a third-degree crime punishable by a prison sentence of between three and five years.

 

S.B. is a congregant at the Eternal Life Christian Center in Somerset, according to the appeals court's opinion. He is a youth leader, counselor, mentor and chaperon for children ranging in age from 12 to 17 for the church's No Limits Youth Ministry. As such, he supervises children at outings, movie nights, concerts, youth group meetings and day camps.

 

Somerset County Superior Court Judge Julie Marino dismissed the indictment last June, finding that the youth ministry did not meet the definition of a "youth serving organization." The Somerset County Prosecutor's Office appealed.

 

"The sole question for our determination is whether a youth ministry associated with a church, where defendant is a congregant volunteer, is a 'youth serving organization' defined to 'mean a sports team, league, athletic association or any other corporation, excluding public schools, which provides recreational, educational, cultural, social, charitable or other activities or services to persons under 18 years of age,'" Lihotz said, quoting the relevant portion of the statute. "We conclude it is not and affirm."

Board of Education To Stop Cameras From Rolling
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

3D Breast Tomosynthesis, Not What it is Cracked Up To Be!
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

Lord and Taylor Spring Cosmetic Trend Show
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

 

 

 

 

Lord and Taylor Spring Cosmetic Trend Show

 

By Tammy Duffy

 

 

 

 

 

 

During the early morning hours yesterday women were waiting in droves to enter Lord and Taylor at the Quaker Bridge Mall.  They were waiting to enter Lord and Taylor's Spring Cosmetic Trend Show.

 

When is comes to beauty, we can become obsessed. The must-try haircut, crisp cat-eye, and anti aging products that make us look like we are 20 again, become a part of our daily regime. This semiannual event has become the hit event of women in know and focused on looking young and beautiful.

 

There were numerous presentations given by the likes of Lancome, Estee Lauder, Bobbi Brown, Kiehl's, Chanel. Shiseido, Dior, Clinique, Borghese, Nars, Lancome, NuFace and many others. The women in attendance got the opportunity to compete for wonderful gift bags with values of over $200 each. The gift bags varied in contents from perfume, full product masks, $200 medical spa gift certificates, etc. Free samples of product literally flew through the air to the women during the presentations.

 

Estee Lauder started the educational component of the event. The first woman who could show they had an Estee Lauder  lipstick in their purse got a prize. The women in attendance were taught about a new digital tool that Estee Lauder has. This tool takes four digital photos of your skin to calculate the best shade of lipstick and foundation for every woman. You can go to their counter any time and have this evaluation performed. After the evaluation, you will walk away with a 10 day supply of foundation to try. There are many shades of red, this new digital tool finds the correct shade of red for every woman.

 

Elizabeth Arden shared some news with the women about their new product, Grand Entrance mascara.  They also spoke about, Superstart, Skin renewal booster. This is a product that is a universal skin booster with probiotic complex. It allows any anti aging product you use to go deeper into your skin. It contains glasswort and flaxseed and opens the water channels in the skin so your skin stays hydrated. At the event today, attendees got to receive at no cost ($90 value) Elizabeth Arden's signature Oxygen blast service. This service is designed to get you in and out of the chair and on your glowy way in 20 minutes or less.

 

During this process its best to go in bare faced. You will receive a double cleanse, a tone, the blast of the mineral and seaweed extracts that serve to get deep into your cellular layers, and then the follow-up blast of oxygen. The latter two elements are applied with an airbrush, and the aestheticians make sure that every pore gets a good dose of both. 

 

Apparently you can get this done over your existing make-up if you’re heading out on the town after work and want to look as though you’ve been lying around at your leisure all day. Your pores will thank you and your skin will glow like the heavens after this process.

 

One other item on display was the new Birdcage in Lord and Taylor.  Birdcage, is a  new concept “shop-in-shop” at Lord & Taylor at QB Mall. There are 11 Birdcage pop ups in the USA.  This boutique inside Lord and Taylor features carefully-curated pieces from all over the world. Currently on display are Lomography, crafty clutches, quirky-shaped jewelry, edgy home goods and beauty products. Throughout the season, Birdcage will feature trunk shows and events with emerging and established local brands that are sure to feed your retail loving soul.

 

The next Cosmetic Trend event will be in November 2016. Don't miss it!

 

 

Hamilton Township Health Department Receives an Unsatisfactory Rating For Their Food Safety Inspection Program
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

For Their Food Safety Inspection Program

 

By Tammy Duffy, PhD 

 

Hamilton Township Food Inspection Data: Source Hamilton twp website

 

 

 

The township of Hamilton, Mercer County,  released food establishment inspection results on Friday. This is a new initiative where they state they are committed to maintaining the health safety of residents and visitors to Hamilton Township.  In order to promote Hamilton Township’s health safety the Division of Health conducts inspections of retail food establishments, public recreational swimming pools and spas, and youth camps located within Hamilton Township.  If the township is truly committed to public safety, they need to alter their approach, inspection process, inspection postings, inspectors professionalism immediately.

 

Let's first review some of the data which comes directly from the townships web site.  The data only goes back to July 2012 and only shows an overall result, no details. The actual reports are not on line. The residents will have no idea why an establishment failed.

 

The data starts at the same magical start point date July 2012.  This is the same date that one will find if you OPRA any data (which is digital in nature) from the township. Prior to this date townships officials destroyed all digital data on all computers in the township.  There is no historical data available. There was no certification of the destruction of the records which is required by law. The destruction of public documents is against the law and a prosecutable offense.

 

Overall results:

 

• In 2012, there were only 23 sites inspected
• In 2013, there were only 296 sites inspected
• In 2014, 500 sites were inspected
• In 2015, 672 sites were inspected
• In 2016, thus far 127 have been inspected
• In 2014, 184 inspections were done in first half of year, 316 in second half of year

 

The data is quite remarkable in that it demonstrates a hockey stick effect at the end of every year.  Does this mean that the risk to residents is higher in the first half of the year at any food establishment?  Why are the inspections not happening in a more stable timeframe? These results demonstrate a blatant disregard for public safety.

 

More questions to ponder.......

 

• Why were there only 23 sites inspected in the second half of the year in 2012? Clearly, there were more than 23 food establishments in Hamilton then.
• In 2014, there were 500 inspections, yet in 2013 only 296. Where there 204 new food establishments added in Hamilton in 2014? 
• In 2015, there were 672 inspections, yet in 2015 there were only 500. Where there 172 new food establishments in 2015 added in Hamilton? Of course not.

 

 

We took the opportunity to call 30 restaurants on the list from various years and what we learned is quite remarkable. The restaurants have varying results from satisfactory, unsatisfactory to conditionally satisfactory. The restaurant owners were candid about the process and how they feel about this new initiative. There were a few repeated frustrations at all levels.

 

• The inspectors that come are extremely unprofessional. They are rude to the establishments staff and owners.

 

• The inspection process was different at all 30 establishments. The way in which the inspectors performed the inspections was different at each establishment.

 

• The inspectors arrive with an "axe to grind" attitude and are failing establishments needlessly.

 

 

It is clear from the thirty restaurant owners we spoke to, that the process is significantly broken.  It is quite concerning that the inspections are done differently at each establishment. How can the township set an evaluation result which is "standardized" if the methodology utilized in the inspections is flawed?  This flawed approach will not produce results that are of any value to the residents or public safety.

 

The list that has been posted by the township is nothing more than a list. It does not demonstrate the entire report, so the entire story is not shared.  There methods appear to be extremely flawed. The hockey stick effect to the timing of the inspections does not meet the FDA required mandates.

 

We have seen this before with the constant touting of the crime reports being the lowest in the township since 1977. The residents want to see where the data is from 1977, clearly it data that far back does not exist anywhere else in the township. If the township shared all the data for the food inspections, residents would be able to make better informed decisions.

 

This new initiative appears to be more of a smear campaign towards small local businesses vs. educating the public. If the township clearly wants to be open about the process, share the entire health inspection reports, the certifications of all the inspectors and the calibration results of the tools utilized by the inspectors.

 

The FDA set standards for food inspections.  The ultimate goal to be achieved by a food establishment inspection is to prevent foodborne disease. Inspection is the primary tool a regulatory agency has for detecting procedures and practices which may be hazardous and taking actions to correct deficiencies. Food Code-based laws and ordinances provide inspectors scientifically based rules for food safety.

 

The regulatory agencies supply towns with guidance on planning, scheduling, conducting, and evaluating inspections. It also supports programs by providing recommendations for training and equipping the inspection staff, and attempts to enhance the effectiveness of inspections by stressing the importance of communication and information exchange during regulatory visits. Inspections aid the industry by:

 

(1) Serving as educational sessions on specific Code requirements as they apply to an establishment and its operation;

(2) Conveying new food safety information to establishment management and providing an opportunity for management to ask questions about general food safety matters; and

(3) Providing a written report to the establishment's permit holder or person in charge so that the responsible person can bring the establishment into conformance with the Code.

 

Inspectors must be properly equipped to perform the inspections in their assigned territory.  Basic staff training is very important to staff development and should be a well-defined and documented process. There is zero information supplied to the residents of Hamilton on how often the food inspectors are trained or if they have been trained.  There is no inspector certifications posted anywhere to ensure the public the inspectors are current on technology and inspection protocols.

 

Another important data point missing from the inspectors reports is proof of calibration of the devices in which they utilize during an inspection. If they are going to fail an establishment for their refrigerator temperatures being off by a few degrees, they better be able to prove that the device they used for their measurement, is not out of calibration. If they go on to say that an establishment must replace their entire refrigerator, the township inspectors better be able to prove their tools are calibrated. In the event their devices are not calibrated or they cannot prove they were, or the township has no certication on file of the inspector, the restaurant owner would have ever right to sue the township for financial hardships created by the inspectors.

 

Our advise to residents about this data is it is flawed. Before anyone gets upset that they just ate at a place that received anything but satisfactory result from a township health inspector, know that the township is failing at their approach to food inspections. The hockey stick effect, the unprofessional nature of the inspectors, the lack of certification data shared on the inspectors, the lack of certification data on the tools utilized by inspectors, etc are just a few of the flaws.  The list they posted is not a true representation of the entire story.

The township should take the time to review and optimize their own inspection team and process before handing out any more fines. Their current program gets a UNSATISFACTORY grade from the residents and jeopordizes public safety.

 

The responsibility for this belongs at the top of the leadership in Hamilton. It was also shared with us that during events in area restaurants the top leader in Hamilton demonstrates a behavior that is "treacherous towards her employees. When she does not get her way she behaves like a spoiled child." 

 

The cadence of behavior is set from the top in business and in towns. If the top leader behaves in a manner that is creating an environment of intimidation, this transcends to those who work in their environment.  This no doubt why these 30 restaurant we spoke to, are seeing the unprofessional, intimidating, rude behavior by the inspectors. They are walking to the cadence of the leadership in Hamilton. 

 

IDEA.....Maybe the township should put some of the body cameras they are buying for the police department, on the health inspectors. This will allow them to evaluate how they are doing their inspections and help optimize the issues with the process. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hamilton Township Health Department Receives an Unsatisfactory Rating For Their Food Safety Inspection Program
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

For Their Food Safety Inspection Program

 

By Tammy Duffy, PhD 

 

Hamilton Township Food Inspection Data: Source Hamilton twp website

 

 

 

The township of Hamilton, Mercer County,  released food establishment inspection results on Friday. This is a new initiative where they state they are committed to maintaining the health safety of residents and visitors to Hamilton Township.  In order to promote Hamilton Township’s health safety the Division of Health conducts inspections of retail food establishments, public recreational swimming pools and spas, and youth camps located within Hamilton Township.  If the township is truly committed to public safety, they need to alter their approach, inspection process, inspection postings, inspectors professionalism immediately.

 

Let's first review some of the data which comes directly from the townships web site.  The data only goes back to July 2012 and only shows an overall result, no details. The actual reports are not on line. The residents will have no idea why an establishment failed.

 

The data starts at the same magical start point date July 2012.  This is the same date that one will find if you OPRA any data (which is digital in nature) from the township. Prior to this date townships officials destroyed all digital data on all computers in the township.  There is no historical data available. There was no certification of the destruction of the records which is required by law. The destruction of public documents is against the law and a prosecutable offense.

 

Overall results:

 

• In 2012, there were only 23 sites inspected
• In 2013, there were only 296 sites inspected
• In 2014, 500 sites were inspected
• In 2015, 672 sites were inspected
• In 2016, thus far 127 have been inspected
• In 2014, 184 inspections were done in first half of year, 316 in second half of year

 

The data is quite remarkable in that it demonstrates a hockey stick effect at the end of every year.  Does this mean that the risk to residents is higher in the first half of the year at any food establishment?  Why are the inspections not happening in a more stable timeframe? These results demonstrate a blatant disregard for public safety.

 

More questions to ponder.......

 

• Why were there only 23 sites inspected in the second half of the year in 2012? Clearly, there were more than 23 food establishments in Hamilton then.
• In 2014, there were 500 inspections, yet in 2013 only 296. Where there 204 new food establishments added in Hamilton in 2014? 
• In 2015, there were 672 inspections, yet in 2015 there were only 500. Where there 172 new food establishments in 2015 added in Hamilton? Of course not.

 

 

We took the opportunity to call 30 restaurants on the list from various years and what we learned is quite remarkable. The restaurants have varying results from satisfactory, unsatisfactory to conditionally satisfactory. The restaurant owners were candid about the process and how they feel about this new initiative. There were a few repeated frustrations at all levels.

 

• The inspectors that come are extremely unprofessional. They are rude to the establishments staff and owners.

 

• The inspection process was different at all 30 establishments. The way in which the inspectors performed the inspections was different at each establishment.

 

• The inspectors arrive with an "axe to grind" attitude and are failing establishments needlessly.

 

 

It is clear from the thirty restaurant owners we spoke to, that the process is significantly broken.  It is quite concerning that the inspections are done differently at each establishment. How can the township set an evaluation result which is "standardized" if the methodology utilized in the inspections is flawed?  This flawed approach will not produce results that are of any value to the residents or public safety.

 

The list that has been posted by the township is nothing more than a list. It does not demonstrate the entire report, so the entire story is not shared.  There methods appear to be extremely flawed. The hockey stick effect to the timing of the inspections does not meet the FDA required mandates.

 

We have seen this before with the constant touting of the crime reports being the lowest in the township since 1977. The residents want to see where the data is from 1977, clearly it data that far back does not exist anywhere else in the township. If the township shared all the data for the food inspections, residents would be able to make better informed decisions.

 

This new initiative appears to be more of a smear campaign towards small local businesses vs. educating the public. If the township clearly wants to be open about the process, share the entire health inspection reports, the certifications of all the inspectors and the calibration results of the tools utilized by the inspectors.

 

The FDA set standards for food inspections.  The ultimate goal to be achieved by a food establishment inspection is to prevent foodborne disease. Inspection is the primary tool a regulatory agency has for detecting procedures and practices which may be hazardous and taking actions to correct deficiencies. Food Code-based laws and ordinances provide inspectors scientifically based rules for food safety.

 

The regulatory agencies supply towns with guidance on planning, scheduling, conducting, and evaluating inspections. It also supports programs by providing recommendations for training and equipping the inspection staff, and attempts to enhance the effectiveness of inspections by stressing the importance of communication and information exchange during regulatory visits. Inspections aid the industry by:

 

(1) Serving as educational sessions on specific Code requirements as they apply to an establishment and its operation;

(2) Conveying new food safety information to establishment management and providing an opportunity for management to ask questions about general food safety matters; and

(3) Providing a written report to the establishment's permit holder or person in charge so that the responsible person can bring the establishment into conformance with the Code.

 

Inspectors must be properly equipped to perform the inspections in their assigned territory.  Basic staff training is very important to staff development and should be a well-defined and documented process. There is zero information supplied to the residents of Hamilton on how often the food inspectors are trained or if they have been trained.  There is no inspector certifications posted anywhere to ensure the public the inspectors are current on technology and inspection protocols.

 

Another important data point missing from the inspectors reports is proof of calibration of the devices in which they utilize during an inspection. If they are going to fail an establishment for their refrigerator temperatures being off by a few degrees, they better be able to prove that the device they used for their measurement, is not out of calibration. If they go on to say that an establishment must replace their entire refrigerator, the township inspectors better be able to prove their tools are calibrated. In the event their devices are not calibrated or they cannot prove they were, or the township has no certication on file of the inspector, the restaurant owner would have ever right to sue the township for financial hardships created by the inspectors.

 

Our advise to residents about this data is it is flawed. Before anyone gets upset that they just ate at a place that received anything but satisfactory result from a township health inspector, know that the township is failing at their approach to food inspections. The hockey stick effect, the unprofessional nature of the inspectors, the lack of certification data shared on the inspectors, the lack of certification data on the tools utilized by inspectors, etc are just a few of the flaws.  The list they posted is not a true representation of the entire story.

The township should take the time to review and optmize their own inspection team and process before handing out any more fines. Their current program gets a UNSATISFACTORY grade from the residents and jeopordizes public safety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MCCC’s AAWCC Chapter Celebrates Women’s History Month with Tribute to Harriet Tubman March 12
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

City of Lights
Topic: COMMUNITY INTEREST

 

 

Baltimore's Inner Harbor will be aglow March 28-April 3 for the inaugural Light City Baltimore, a festival that combines light art installation, free concerts and entertainment, and a conference dedicated to the theme "Powering Social Change."

 

The starring attraction will be the nightly BGE Art Walk: 29 light installations situated on the Inner Harbor promenade and nearby streets, projected o area buildings and floating in the harbor waters.  As they make their way along the path, festival-goers will be entertained at outdoor stages by nationally known bands, performance groups and street theater.   There will even be a kid's version night with family friendly, "lighted" cotton candy.

 

The artwalk and entertainment will take placec from 7pm to 11pm Sunday through Thursday and 7pm to midnight on Friday and Saturday. FREE event! www.lightcity.org for more details